Advaita and Its Fallacies

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Refusal to acknowledge the limitations of reason and possibility of realms beyond intellect is what I refer here.

Dear Shri SwamiTaBra, I am afraid you are completely wrong about this. I have always stated that human knowledge is incomplete, and owing to the limits of human intellect, it may never be complete. What I refuse to accept is the claim that somehow, what is beyond the limits of human reason, can be understood through contemplation or meditation, and that some have actually done exactly that.

You may revel in casting aspersions on every vibuthi (I have myself said that there are enough fraudsters) but that does not help any one even a bit.

I am not sure what you mean. If my comment about RM is what you have in mind, then I must say, you have a very low bar for what you consider as aspersions. Here is what I said about RM:

RM is a much revered man for a lot of people. To me, he is one man presenting some interesting ideas. His ideas are acceptable to me only to the extent they make sense. This does not mean I think of him a charlatan. I am unwilling to accept arguments that go like, "RM said so and therefore it is true".
​

Pray tell, what sort of aspersions do you see in this statement.

The problem is how to test whether one has graduated into the supra-intellectual zones.

There is. The claims may be demonstrated in a clearly observable and repeatable way, in a neutral environment. This is the standard everybody who wants their claims to be taken seriously use. The latest Indian to be recognized for this in the most dramatic way is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan in Sweden.

By the way,the Buddhists in India are Hinduised in that they visit temples; the same with Lingayats, the followers of Basavanna.

Will you be able to get the informed follwers of Basavanna or Buddha to go on record and accept the validity of the Vedas? I am afraid not.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Do the phonemes change or the syllables change? Kindly show me proof that they have changed since the early days of humanity. The whole point is that no one trusts the integrity of what someone else says. Perhaps this is what an age is. There cetainly can be gaps in understanding, as archealogists will vouch, but does it mean everything of past are not valid, unless transmitted without interruption. Scepticism definitely is healthy . Even as we argue, we rely on book by some one else. Even Sri. Sangom or Sri Nara had to rely on print (now transmitted through NET) and everything is fragmented.

Dear Swami,
Its not about changes in pronunciation or syllables. My question is rather simple -- why should vedas be considered as pramana?

If the vedas are not pramana, then possibly all religions of the east wud be branches of hinduism (or atleast buddhism and taoism surely). And how about agamas? The saiva siddhanta is agama based. Is it not a valid philosophy?

And what happens if there are verses that are obsence by today's standards in the vedas? Surely they cannot be considered as pramana.

It is rather apparent that the vedas are not really homogeneous. One can find verses that are either atheistic, agnostic or theistic. So which portions should be taken as pramana? Why should only certain portions be considered valid by some philosophers?

So pray tell me dear swami, why should vedas be considered pramana?

No one said Vivekananda propounded vedas. What is interesting in what he said was that vedas are the only scriptures which asks to go beyond that. We can only speculate what he meant,

Swami, it is rather apaprent why he said so. To the uttaramimansa followers, vedas are not the end or beginning of everything. Things can be investigated, rejected or created. But to the purvamimansa followers the vedas are infallible.

The rishis are not authors in the conventional sense. They are supposed to have just transmitted the sounds. It is somewhat like an inspired poetry, in which the poet does not exercise his mental faculties.
Birth of such rishis is not precluded in the future eras.

Swami, please could you elaborate on this? All poetry evoke certain feelings. So does music. Even today, people write beautiful poetry (hariharan is one of them). If the poetry were in sanskrit and not in english, would they be called rishis?

Quarrels arise more out of fragmented knowledge rather than by ignorance. In saying so I am also a party. Pehaps this makes many people scary of intellectual exercises and takes them to secure sentimentalism that Bhakti offers.

With regards,
Swami

Swami, these are your opinions. Surely we are not quarelling here. Am not sure what connection this has with the topic at hand (why shruti must be considered pramana). Come to think of it, why cannot people propound philosophies outside of shruti and still be 'vedic' and hindu?

Regards.

 

[arunshanker]

Shruthi - what is heard or revealed generally unquestionable. Could it be that to make certain things unquestionable and to discourage debate on the origins certain people have made certain things to called as Shrithi. In fact I am saying this because what ever is written, read, spoken or listened to - someone must have written or spoken it - It couldn't have come from nowhere.

 

[sangom]

Dear HH,
...Quarrels arise more out of fragmented knowledge rather than by ignorance. In saying so I am also a party. Pehaps this makes many people scary of intellectual exercises and takes them to secure sentimentalism that Bhakti offers.

With regards,
Swami[/COLOR][/FONT]

Shri Swami,

I think by the word 'quarrel' you are not referring to the physical variety which may be anything up to organised holy war, but only the intellectual ones.

If my presumption is right, how will you view the authors of the Upanishads who had real ideological differences with the ritual-oriented folks, Sankara who had difference with the same folks, Ramanuja who openly criticised Sankara and so on? Are they not all victims of fragmented knowledge because they questioned the establishment, so to say, in terms of your rule?

 

[sangom]

Shruthi - what is heard or revealed generally unquestionable. Could it be that to make certain things unquestionable and to discourage debate on the origins certain people have made certain things to called as Shrithi. In fact I am saying this because what ever is written, read, spoken or listened to - someone must have written or spoken it - It couldn't have come from nowhere.

The word "Sruti" in Sanskrit means hearing, listening. In most ancient societies which had not developed a writing system, their legends and tales, poems, etc., used to be transmitted by 'word of mouth', so to say. It was taught in this manner. Even today there are primitive tribes in which the elderly members have a store of such memorised lore which is learnt by their youngsters.

The same might have been the case with the Rigveda at least, each tribe having its own fund of lore. This is what appears as the family books in the Rigveda. The additions might have been sort of miscellaneous collections and later additions from the different tribes. As you have rightly conjectured what was heard and transmitted in this fashion was "Sruti" while the anecdotes, observations, etc., of the latter-day rishis was called "smriti" because these were from their own memories. But the word "Sruti" got interpreted to mean "heard", i.e., heard from the divine realm, by picking up and deciphering the ethereal vibrations of such divine sound vibrations by the Rishis who had developed special traits to do this superhuman job.

Personally I feel this might have been an invention of the "vedists" when their extreme sacrifice-oriented religious faith came under threat from Buddha and Mahavira and a whole set of ascetics known as Ajivikas, etc.

 

[nachi naga]

Scriptures have the knack of objectifying god at the start as someone other than you and subsequently bring the identity of god pretty close to you as part of you. In the vedantic texts such as upanishads, the authors dare the readers by saying that god is not just part of you but it is verily you.

 

[Nara]

Shruthi - what is heard or revealed generally unquestionable. Could it be that to make certain things unquestionable and to discourage debate on the origins certain people have made certain things to called as Shrithi. In fact I am saying this because what ever is written, read, spoken or listened to - someone must have written or spoken it - It couldn't have come from nowhere.

Arun, I miss you a lot in this forum, hope you will participate more.

IMO, may I say IMHO, the reason why our Vedas are unique among the religious texts, i.e., it is un-authored and ever present, is forgotten sources and a clever logician's foresight to counter the objection of circular argument, namely, god is god because our texts say so and our religious texts are valid because they are our god's words. Otherwise, it is no more, or less, awe inspiring, or worthy of reverence, compared to any other" revealed" text.

Arun, I follow your Facebook comments, but would like to see you participate here more often as it surely will make for more interesting discussions.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....Why is prayaksham and anumanam valid for understanding Shruti, but not valid for anything else? Suspending them when they come in the way of the favored thesis is not self-serving, why?

Folks, given that nobody has come forward to provide a response to this challenge, I take it this challenge is conceded. This one question, by itself, is sufficient to conclude that Advaitam comes crashing down due to internal contradiction.

But, there are more objections. The next objection is Advaitam rejecting of all the bedha shruthis in favor of abheda. Why? How come all the bheda shruti are invalid in the ultimate? The blog Shri KRS cited suggests an in between reality, a relative one, but that has no support from the Vedas, the only pramana the proponents of Advaitam accept. Where in the Shruti, or Brhma Sutras, do we have support for this notion that there are three states, absolute reality (nriguna brhmmam), relative reality (saguna Iswara) which is unreal in the absolute, and a completely unreal state?

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

hi Nara sir,

so we called in advaitha.......ANIRVACHANIEEYA KHYATIH.......its meanings.....it is unexplainable to our indriyas.....

regards

tbs

 

[Nara]

..so we called in advaitha.......ANIRVACHANIEEYA KHYATIH.......its meanings.....it is unexplainable to our indriyas.....

Dear tbs sir, if this is true, then anybody can claim anything and escape by simply saying it is unexplainable to our indriyas..... no?

tbs sir, I really liked your response to Ramanuja in the America Today thread...

best regards ...

 

[tbs]

hi nara sir,

may be kinda escapism.....but it is is called ANIRVACHANIYAM........

thank u again for ur compliments.....

regards
tbs

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Our discussion is not over yet. Your question demands a detailed answer and I have been busy, I need about a couple of hours to put together a response. Unlike you, I am no scholar and this thread fortunately made me find out things about Advaitham more clearly that I did not know before. But, nothing I have learned new so far changes my opinion about this great Sampradhayam. Please wait......

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

hi Nara sir,

so we called in advaitha.......ANIRVACHANIEEYA KHYATIH.......its meanings.....it is unexplainable to our indriyas.....

regards

tbs

Shri tbs,

To which are you ascribing the adjective "anirvachaneeya", the absolute and non-dual reality (nirguna brhmmam), relative reality (saguna Iswara) which is unreal in the absolute, and a completely unreal state?

AFAIK the word "anirvachaneeya" is used to describe "mAyA" because the advaitins are caught if they say mAyA is unreal, and also if they say it is real. So they immediately switched to a new term "anirvachaneeya" which in simple words means "we don't know". In a grand philosophy which claims to explain everything logically, such a postulate of an unknown element, none of whose attributes can be rationally described, is a weak point.

When Ramanuja asked whether mAyA is real or unreal, Sankarites' reply was "we never told that avidyA is either real or unreal; it is neither real nor unreal, it is “aniRvachaneeya sadasad vilakshaNa”. This is the third logical possibility which advaithins can make use of, different from both real and unreal.I have condensed the matter very much but this does not distort the lengthy discussions which went on and are still continuing between advaitins and Ramanujaites.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

With all due respect, it has been established that Maya is real in the relative physical world and is a truth but from the transcendental Brahman's/Atma's realm, it does not exist. We have discussed about the three levels of reality in Advaitha, yet, you don't seem to accept that explanation! Are you denying the explanation that Avidya does not exist in the realm of Atman?

The word you are discussing here is not about the existence of Maya, but why it exists. The reason for it's existence is not knowable like we do not know the reason for creation itself. What is the philosophical conundrum here, if one looks at Shankara's system as empirical? It is not a theist philosophy.

Regards,
KRS

Shri tbs,

To which are you ascribing the adjective "anirvachaneeya", the absolute and non-dual reality (nirguna brhmmam), relative reality (saguna Iswara) which is unreal in the absolute, and a completely unreal state?

AFAIK the word "anirvachaneeya" is used to describe "mAyA" because the advaitins are caught if they say mAyA is unreal, and also if they say it is real. So they immediately switched to a new term "anirvachaneeya" which in simple words means "we don't know". In a grand philosophy which claims to explain everything logically, such a postulate of an unknown element, none of whose attributes can be rationally described, is a weak point.

When Ramanuja asked whether mAyA is real or unreal, Sankarites' reply was "we never told that avidyA is either real or unreal; it is neither real nor unreal, it is “aniRvachaneeya sadasad vilakshaNa”. This is the third logical possibility which advaithins can make use of, different from both real and unreal.I have condensed the matter very much but this does not distort the lengthy discussions which went on and are still continuing between advaitins and Ramanujaites.

 

[nachi naga]

maya is transitory in nature and real optical illusion or mind aberration.even though we do not see the sound waves with our naked eyes,yet thru a medium like wireless handset,e can speak despite the distance.that too from the moon space station to earth hub.this is possible via science,to harness such invisible commodityfor the purpose of communication.sound wave technology,was used by us,during ancient civilisation too.earth is just a speck,in comparison with other celestial objects in cosmos.within earth,we humans are a tiny dot.gods omnipresence exists at every strata of visible and invisible realityathma is invisible,yet without athma,there is no life.the oneness of the inner being,when experianced,gives us ,brahman gyaanam aka advaita,imho.

 

[Nara]

... Please wait......

Sure Shri KRS, please take your time. Advaitins have been trying for 1000 years now. But, I must say, to see the fallacies one has to go into this with an open mind. If you have already made your mind up you will only be looking for bits and pieces that reinforce your preconceived notions. Anyway, I will await your considered response.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

With all due respect, it has been established that Maya is real in the relative physical world and is a truth but from the transcendental Brahman's/Atma's realm, it does not exist. We have discussed about the three levels of reality in Advaitha, yet, you don't seem to accept that explanation! Are you denying the explanation that Avidya does not exist in the realm of Atman?

The word you are discussing here is not about the existence of Maya, but why it exists. The reason for it's existence is not knowable like we do not know the reason for creation itself. What is the philosophical conundrum here, if one looks at Shankara's system as empirical? It is not a theist philosophy.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

If you just make statements without any supporting evidence, it is difficult except to ask for such evidence. What references/ authorities can you cite in support of your "pronouncement", if I may say so, that "it has been established that Maya is real in the relative physical world"?

I have given the continuous debates that have been going on in this topic between people who are definitely scholars.

The question has not so far been about "why maya exists?". That is a different problem altogether. We are only talking about the nature (real or unreal) of maya and where it is located. Let us confine our discussions to these two issues only. We can go to the other aspects subsequently.

The conundrum is like this, put in very simple terma but the actual debates are more abstruse, of course:
If maya is really Real as sankara had postulated only two real and unreal, then maya has to be part of brahman which is the only, non-dual reality. If so maya is brahman's quality, hence brahman becomes qualified, saguna.

If maya is unreal it has to be in the jiva itself nowhere else if it has to create the delusion that is this universe. But advaita holds that it is due to maya is at ht e root of the creation of jivas. How can something which creates be residing in that created product?

Anyway Sankara himself says:
" maaya sabalitam bramha ekameva aseet" - meaning at the beginning bramhan combined with maya existed in the beginning without a second!"

(Re: Mani-Vidyasankar debate: Points)

Hence I will request you to support your bland statements with appropriate references so that we are just not repeating our pre-conceived biases.

If Sankara's is not a theist philosophy, where does the notion of "saguna brahman' or Iswara, fit in? Is that also an unreal illusion, to be discarded as quickly as possible?

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Dear Shri SwamiTaBra, I am afraid you are completely wrong about this. I have always stated that human knowledge is incomplete, and owing to the limits of human intellect, it may never be complete. What I refuse to accept is the claim that somehow, what is beyond the limits of human reason, can be understood through contemplation or meditation, and that some have actually done exactly that.

I am not sure what you mean. If my comment about RM is what you have in mind, then I must say, you have a very low bar for what you consider as aspersions. Here is what I said about RM:

RM is a much revered man for a lot of people. To me, he is one man presenting some interesting ideas. His ideas are acceptable to me only to the extent they make sense. This does not mean I think of him a charlatan. I am unwilling to accept arguments that go like, "RM said so and therefore it is true".
​

Pray tell, what sort of aspersions do you see in this statement.


There is. The claims may be demonstrated in a clearly observable and repeatable way, in a neutral environment. This is the standard everybody who wants their claims to be taken seriously use. The latest Indian to be recognized for this in the most dramatic way is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan in Sweden.

Will you be able to get the informed follwers of Basavanna or Buddha to go on record and accept the validity of the Vedas? I am afraid not.

Cheers!

Dear Sri Nara,

I am glad that you accept the proposition that there are limits to human intellect. Further whether you are an agnostic, deist or a nihilist is each individual's position. Each one can affirm his stand.

The reason why I would not now get into the argument whether what Sankara or someone else has said has validity in Sruti or not is simply because I am wary to taking up few pieces here and there and then hurriedly make some conclusions. I just don't want to be like a clever lawyer who pick up a few points, but would like make a comprehensive study of everything that went into each one's argument.

One thing is clear;

Buddha did not live to defend himself against Sankara, nor did Sankara live to defend himself Ramanuja.

Avowed Buddhists of Sri Lanka visiting Hindu shrines in India, and Lingayats like Yeddyurappa going from temple to temple are proof enough. An open statement may not come, but the actions are good enough.

Interestingly two days back there was an article by Dr. B.M.Hegde in The Hindu in which he has severely castigated the reliability of Randomised Controlled Trials on drugs. Inter alia he says " The tall talk of evidence-based medicine is as hollow as many of our claims to superiority to all other modalities of treatment such as Ayurveda and Homoeopathy. In fact most of them have better scientific base than our modern medicine.. "

With regards,
Swami

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Shri Swami,

I think by the word 'quarrel' you are not referring to the physical variety which may be anything up to organised holy war, but only the intellectual ones.

If my presumption is right, how will you view the authors of the Upanishads who had real ideological differences with the ritual-oriented folks, Sankara who had difference with the same folks, Ramanuja who openly criticised Sankara and so on? Are they not all victims of fragmented knowledge because they questioned the establishment, so to say, in terms of your rule?

The problem is that each one quarrels with other to impose what he considers as right. If any one amongst them have said -- if not have already said before -- that they see only a partial truth and expected other to acknowledge that, it might have been better. Looking at sapthami night moon we may say that it like a cheese half eaten, but on a full-moon day a full disc is visible. But it is not a disc, but in reality a sort of sphere.

When knowledge is complete, where is the question of quarrel intellectually? Whether it was during the upanishidic times or during the present times, it is all the same.

The only question to asked with whether mind is capable of acquiring that complete knowledge....

With regards,
Swami

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Dear Swami,
Its not about changes in pronunciation or syllables. My question is rather simple -- why should vedas be considered as pramana?

If the vedas are not pramana, then possibly all religions of the east wud be branches of hinduism (or atleast buddhism and taoism surely). And how about agamas? The saiva siddhanta is agama based. Is it not a valid philosophy?

And what happens if there are verses that are obsence by today's standards in the vedas? Surely they cannot be considered as pramana.

It is rather apparent that the vedas are not really homogeneous. One can find verses that are either atheistic, agnostic or theistic. So which portions should be taken as pramana? Why should only certain portions be considered valid by some philosophers?

So pray tell me dear swami, why should vedas be considered pramana?

Swami, it is rather apaprent why he said so. To the uttaramimansa followers, vedas are not the end or beginning of everything. Things can be investigated, rejected or created. But to the purvamimansa followers the vedas are infallible.

Swami, please could you elaborate on this? All poetry evoke certain feelings. So does music. Even today, people write beautiful poetry (hariharan is one of them). If the poetry were in sanskrit and not in english, would they be called rishis?

Swami, these are your opinions. Surely we are not quarelling here. Am not sure what connection this has with the topic at hand (why shruti must be considered pramana). Come to think of it, why cannot people propound philosophies outside of shruti and still be 'vedic' and hindu?

Regards.

First I am humble enough to admit to say I have infinitismal knowledge of Vedas. If you are endowed with all the knowledge that vedas have revealed so far then, then you must be counted amongst the treasures of the humanity.

All poetry do not come from the same levels.

Firstly I know my limitations, and as someone calling oneself a hindu hold that that vedas must be true. If you want to have something else as pramana, you may have it, but I am afraid is outside the scope of discussion that Sri Sangom intended.

Your last question is a non sequitur.

With regards,
Swami

 

[sangom]

All members,

There are many among us who swear by the "apourusheyatva" of the vedas and the pristine purity of our scriptures. Puranas form a very integral part of our scriptures and, if an impartial study is made of the brahmin ways of day-to-day life today, it will be found that much of the beliefs, rituals, etc., are derived from or directly prescribed by the Puranas.

Since we are now discussing the advaita darSana in this thread, I thought it will be appropriate to present the certificate given to advaita by Padma Purana, one of the Major Puranas.

Please read:

mAyAvAdam asaccHAstram praccHannam bauddha ucyate
mayaiva katHitam dEvi kalaou brAhmaNa rUpiNA -7

apArtHam SrutivAkyAnAm darSayan lOkagarhitam
svakarmarUpam tyAjyatvam atraiva pratipAdyate -8

sarvakarma paribhrashTairvaidharmatvam taducyate
parESajeevapAraikyam mayA tu pratipAdyate -9

brahmaNOsya svayamrUpam nirguNam vakshyate mayA
sarvasya jagatOऽpyatra mOhanArtHam kalou yugE -10

vEdArtHavanmahASAstram mAyayA yad avaidikam
mayaiva kalpitam dEvi jagatAm nASa kAraNAT -11

(padma purANam - uttarakhaNDa - adhyAya_236)

Goddess pArvati asks rudra: who are the people who will spread tAmasic SAstras (in future) which will be devoid of bhakti towards God?

And rudra replies to her: the above verses are from a total of 26 verses spoken by rudra. These verses clearly state that "I myself, during kaliyuga, in the form of a brAhmaNa, will tell (propound) mAyAvAdam which is a false 'SAstram', and is bouddham in disguise.

By deriving wrong meanings from the Sruti vAkyAs and blaming the world, it will induce people to forsake their "svakarma".

It will tell about the unity of the Supreme (parESa) and jeeva, abolishing all karmas and thus lead to "vaidharmatvam"-unlawfulness.

I will tell that the own 'rUpam' of brahman is nirguNa, because it will delude everyone in kaliyuga.

This replacing of the great SAstra which is the true meaning of Vedas by the mAyA which is against vEda (avaidikam), will be done by me in order to destroy the jagat.

In my view, these verses have been interpolated after Sankara's time. However, for those who hold all our scriptures as unquestionable, it will be necessary to agree that advaita or mAyAvAda is a device, for destruction of this jagat by creating delusion in the minds of people, making them forsake their 'svadharma', etc., made by misinterpretation of vedas and treating the Supreme eeSa and the jeeva as one.I am wondering whether our confirmed Astikas will accept Padma Purana and relinquish advaita, or agree, at least now, that all our scriptures, including the vedas, could have been modified - by interpolations and alterations, deletions being very diificult to unearth - to suit vested interests and will desist from swearing on their infallibility.

 

[Nara]

....I am glad that you accept the proposition that there are limits to human intellect.

Dear Shri SwamiTaBra, IMO, this is what separates theists and atheists. The theists never cease to claim they have all the answers, but the atheists don't -- there lies an important difference between the two.

Interestingly two days back there was an article by Dr. B.M.Hegde in The Hindu in which he has severely castigated the reliability of Randomised Controlled Trials on drugs. Inter alia he says " The tall talk of evidence-based medicine is as hollow as many of our claims to superiority to all other modalities of treatment such as Ayurveda and Homoeopathy. In fact most of them have better scientific base than our modern medicine.. "

I don't understand the upshot of this statement and its relevance to this thread, may be I am missing something. Homeopathy being no more efficacious than a placebo is well established. Ayurveda may have some effective remedies, but the effectiveness must be clinically established, not just claimed.

Scientific method is there for anyone to use or abuse. Abusers will be outed sooner or later, that is what science does best, outing false claims and hypotheses. Double-blind randomized clinical studies work, they establish validate, or invalidate as the case may be, causal relationships. Abuse of this statistical tool, by some unscrupulous people, does not make the tool invalid. Used properly, it can save lives and has done so countless times.

Thanks and regards ...

 

[Nara]

.....In my view, these verses have been interpolated after Sankara's time. ....... I am wondering whether our confirmed Astikas will accept Padma Purana and relinquish advaita, or agree, at least now, that all our scriptures, including the vedas, could have been modified - by interpolations and alterations, deletions being very difficult to unearth - to suit vested interests and will desist from swearing on their infallibility.

Dear Shri Sangom, as you say, these verses no doubt are interpolations. The culprit most likely is an SV, a small chance it is a Madhwa. From what I am able to gather, I think the polemicists of yore were a ruthless lot, never hesitate to stoop to any level in order to discredit the opponent. Some even resorted to physical violence and murder.

I don't know about other sampradayams, but in SV, reverence to Acharya is eulogized as the pinnacle of human objectives பரமபுருஷார்த்த காஷ்டை. SVs are taught that an affront to Ishwara will not result in any serious consequence, but an affront to a Bhagavatha, well it is so serious it cannot be pardoned even by Ishwara, only the aggrieved Bhagavatha can release you of the sin, and until he/she does, even Ishwara will forsake you.

So, no wonder an affront to an Acharya is even more serious than an affront to a mere Bhagavatha, so much so, Bhagavat Ramanuja does not even spell such an affront out but simply says the unmentionable apacharam. Given such extreme and blind reverence is demanded towards the Acharya parampara, we get conditioned for blind reverence, a conditioning that makes us accept such ridiculous assertions as apaursehya of Vedas, literal truth of ithihasa/puranas, infallibility of sampradaya, etc.

Overcoming this extreme case of superstition is our challenge. It is the responsibility of the highly educated Brahmins and upper caste NBs to lead the way. But, sadly, they are the ones at the forefront of perpetuating this folly.

Cheers!

 

[SwamiTaBra]

View attachment All good is hard.doc

Dear Shri SwamiTaBra, IMO, this is what separates theists and atheists. The theists never cease to claim they have all the answers, but the atheists don't -- there lies an important difference between the two.


I don't understand the upshot of this statement and its relevance to this thread, may be I am missing something. Homeopathy being no more efficacious than a placebo is well established. Ayurveda may have some effective remedies, but the effectiveness must be clinically established, not just claimed.

Scientific method is there for anyone to use or abuse. Abusers will be outed sooner or later, that is what science does best, outing false claims and hypotheses. Double-blind randomized clinical studies work, they establish validate, or invalidate as the case may be, causal relationships. Abuse of this statistical tool, by some unscrupulous people, does not make the tool invalid. Used properly, it can save lives and has done so countless times.

Thanks and regards ...

The theists long know -- particularly those practicising only Bhakti--that it a futility, but just as we do for look for precedents in the mundane life, theists look up to humans who claim that it is possible to go beyond intellect. The atheist just reject such a possibility. While a sensitive theist would understand the position of atheist, atheists generally would called the pursuit by theists a fancy.

Please find attached the article by B.M. Hegde. I am neither supporting or rejecting what he has said, but I felt it is worthy of attention.

With regards,
Swami

 

[Nara]

Drar Shri SwamiTaBra, thank you for continuing to humor me with this discussion, I do appreciate it, even though the discussion has digressed a little to theists/atheists.

The theists long know -- particularly those practicising only Bhakti--that it a futility, but just as we do for look for precedents in the mundane life, theists look up to humans who claim that it is possible to go beyond intellect. The atheist just reject such a possibility. While a sensitive theist would understand the position of atheist, atheists generally would called the pursuit by theists a fancy.

You started out with the phrase "The theists long know". This was the point I tried to make in my last post. Without a shred of evidence the theists claim that they know, which to me, comes across as pure arrogance. An atheist, on the other hand, accepts what is unknown as simply that, with all humility.

Sensitive theist is a contradiction in terms, at least in his/her attitude towards atheists. All religious traditions condemn atheists to the most horrible of states, right here and now, and in their future worlds after death. Anyone who openly declares his/her atheism is always look at with suspicion.

Please find attached the article by B.M. Hegde. I am neither supporting or rejecting what he has said, but I felt it is worthy of attention.

Thanks for the pdf, I will take a look at it when I get some spare time. If Hegde is rejecting spurious science, then I am with him -- spurious science is not science, it is fraud. But, some people perpetrating fraud and calling it science cannot somehow make homeopathy or Ayurveda scientific. Homeopathy is no more useful than a placebo.

Cheers!